Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreToyota, the Japanese car manufacturer, sued an Indian auto-parts maker (Prius Auto Industries) in the Delhi High Court for using Toyota's "TOYOTA," "TOYOTA INNOVA" and "TOYOTA DEVICE" marks, and separately for using the name "Prius" (Toyota's hybrid car, launched globally in 1997 but not sold in India until 2009-2010) on spare parts. The defendants had registered "Prius" as their own trade mark in India back in 2002-2003 and had been using it since 2001, claiming they coined it independently from the Hindi phrase "pehela prayas" (first attempt). The trial court ruled for Toyota on both counts, including on passing-off over "Prius," but the Delhi High Court's Division Bench reversed the "Prius" finding, while the dispute over the Toyota-branded marks had by then been resolved by an earlier conditional-use order that was no longer contested.
The Supreme Court held that Indian trade mark law follows the "territoriality principle" (a mark's reputation must be shown within India itself) rather than the "universality doctrine" (global fame automatically carrying over). Since Toyota's car was not sold in India until 2009-2010, well after the defendants had already adopted and registered "Prius" in 2001-2003, mere global advertising, scattered news items, and limited internet-era awareness were not enough to prove that Toyota's goodwill in the "Prius" mark had actually spread to Indian consumers before the defendants started using it. Without proof of prior goodwill specifically in the Indian market, Toyota's passing-off claim over "Prius" could not succeed, regardless of the mark's fame abroad. The Court therefore dismissed Toyota's appeal and upheld the High Court's decision in the defendants' favour on this point.
In India, owning a globally famous brand name is not by itself enough to stop a local business from using a similar name: the brand owner must prove its reputation had genuinely reached Indian customers before the local user adopted the mark; fame elsewhere in the world does not automatically transfer.
